The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the custody of management expenses of KRW 1,191,07 (hereinafter “management expenses of this case”) under the autonomous committee as the chairman’s qualification of Ctel (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

The Defendant is obligated to refund the instant management expenses to the management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Aggregate Buildings Act”), but refuses to return the management expenses due to the lack of the obligation to return to the victim, which is only the instant officetel autonomous committee.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the factual basis and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, notwithstanding the justifiable grounds for the Defendant’s refusal to return.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) was the head of the instant officetel autonomous committee composed of the owners and tenants on April 5, 2015; (b) was transferred from F that was in charge of the instant officetel management expenses to F that was transferred KRW 1,774,220 on May 6, 2015; and (c) the Defendant was in charge of the instant officetel’s possession of KRW 2,034,007 from the occupants of the instant officetel to May 25, 2015; and (d) was in charge of the instant officetel’s use of some of the management expenses as waterworks taxes and cleaning expenses; and (e) the remainder of the management expenses was 1,191,07, and there was a dispute with the instant officetel’s occupants on May 25, 2015; and (e) the Defendant was aware that the instant officetel’s use expenses were not the victim’s management organization under the Aggregate Buildings Act.